So we can assume the halo's will now be mandatory in the other FIA open cockpit categories from next year onward as well?

Surely it has to be. The fact that the teams will be allowed to attach aero devices to them to me cheapens the reason as to why they're being installed in the first place.

I hate the Halo but Horner is right. Once they started the trip down the rabbit hole there was no turning back and as long as it can be argued that the Halo is the best option available and it does mitigate the risk of head strike to some degree without unreasonably increasing the risk in other areas, then it was pretty much a fait accompli that it was on it's way in.

Next stop on the F1 safety train....... enclosed wheels (I actually think flips due to wheel to wheel contact is a bigger safety risk than objects entering the cockpit).

_________________Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

I agree too, 100%. It is so sad to see the sport I've loved for the past 30 years fade away.

Quote:

"The halo would have prevented no deaths in F1 in 23 years, but because of incidents in IndyCar [Justin Wilson] and Formula 2 [Henry Surtees], where there were different tracks, different safety measures, we're introducing something into F1 that changes the whole tradition and history of the sport.

"I'm not being disrespectful. I just think that the whole essence of single-seater racing is open-top.

In 1a cars have, the halo, airbags (on the outside of the car), padded suits, and perhaps even driverless cars as, with safety as the focus, a car with no driver is the pinnacle of safety for the person behind the wheel (in an air conditioned trailer in the UK). If it is not yet safe enough the the track could be painted on a large empty piece of tarmac with no armco and infinite run off areas.

In formula 1 cars have reduced aero, no halo, there are no blue flags and refueling is a part of pit stops. That's the way racing should be IMHO. If a driver can't handle f1 on an emotional, physical or spiritual, or risk management level you move to 1a or better yet E.

I truly believe that F1 must carry with it an assumption of risk and, for those who can manage that risk, rewards. We can't cave in to the lowest common denominator or else we'll have speed posted limits soon. That would increase safety.

I think this is one of those things that for some people will feel like the end of the world... Until it actually happens.

Then ultimately it's the same cars driving around the same tracks at the same speeds racing in the same way. If every car has it people will get used to it, then stop talking about it and then it will just disappear into the background.

In 1a cars have, the halo, airbags (on the outside of the car), padded suits, and perhaps even driverless cars as, with safety as the focus, a car with no driver is the pinnacle of safety for the person behind the wheel (in an air conditioned trailer in the UK). If it is not yet safe enough the the track could be painted on a large empty piece of tarmac with no armco and infinite run off areas.

In formula 1 cars have reduced aero, no halo, there are no blue flags and refueling is a part of pit stops. That's the way racing should be IMHO. If a driver can't handle f1 on an emotional, physical or spiritual, or risk management level you move to 1a or better yet E.

I truly believe that F1 must carry with it an assumption of risk and, for those who can manage that risk, rewards. We can't cave in to the lowest common denominator or else we'll have speed posted limits soon. That would increase safety.

Ridiculous....

I don't like the looks of the halo either, however some of the responses by some drivers and forum members are way over the top. This is NOT the end of F1 as we know it, it is at best an evolution, and at worst an attempt to make it safer. There may very well be changes in the look or even the type of protection, but surely the FIA felt the need to act, and did so. You can bet that other open-cockpit cars will be sporting variations of the halo...or perhaps full covers. You might as well get used to it. The beautiful new INDY cars are, reportedly, designed with the idea of a covered cockpit in the future.

I find it interesting that the most vocal opponents to giving the halo a try tend to be the very young drivers, and fans whose greatest physical risk is a horse voice from yelling at their monitors from the safety of their homes. It is so easy to be brave when you have no risk.

It is going to happen, and as a poster said earlier, we will get used to it. You know that the FIA has acted what it feels is the safety of the drivers. They are not trying to destroy the nature of the sport. They are not doing this to favor one team over another, so it isn't political. Why not give it a chance?

Lastly, a message for Verstappen... the cars are already ugly...now they will just be uglier!

So if the halo ruins F1, there are going to be lot of people out of work.

It is easy for us to dismiss safety as a "joke" with our monitors and hundreds of miles from the "front" between us and the dangers.

There are plenty of drivers who will gladly step into a haloless F1 car. No team will lack for finding drivers.

The FIA is mandating this abomination. It's coming from the top down.

so what is your point? Dump any driver who thinks that the "halo" worth a try? Lets get a bunch of drivers who don't give a damn about safety, just so that they are in F1? As I suggested before, you sure are "brave" sitting in front of your computer. Some drivers have said lets give it a try if it makes the racer safer, but judging by your earlier posts you would just as soon relate them to the sidelines.

I can only imagine that you would have also been against helmets, Hahns devices, collars, rollover supports, high speed capacity tires... you can bet there were some who thought them unnecessary too... probably some even made asinine comments suggesting the "ruin" of F1 because of them. Whether tarlik likes it or not, safety aspects will continue to be part of F1 evolvement. We aren't going to like some of them, may even think that they are ugly, but it is going to happen. And over time, we get used to the safety development, and most will get used to the Halo too.... As I said before, it isn't pretty...and while you think I am wrong, it is my perogative to think that F1 cars are already ugly... they do need to do what they can to make the sport safer... if not, the FIA would be negligent in their duties, and if an accident were to happen that a Halo may have saved a life, but it were shown that FIA had such a solution and ignored it... THEN... it could be the "end" of F1, not the use of a Halo ending F1. So, I agree with you in one respect... it is the FIA mandating the halo and it is coming from the top... as it should.

Is there a better answer? Perhaps so, and over time, it will come forth for review. it is called evolution.

So if the halo ruins F1, there are going to be lot of people out of work.

It is easy for us to dismiss safety as a "joke" with our monitors and hundreds of miles from the "front" between us and the dangers.

There are plenty of drivers who will gladly step into a haloless F1 car. No team will lack for finding drivers.

The FIA is mandating this abomination. It's coming from the top down.

so what is your point? Dump any driver who thinks that the "halo" worth a try? Lets get a bunch of drivers who don't give a damn about safety, just so that they are in F1? As I suggested before, you sure are "brave" sitting in front of your computer. Some drivers have said lets give it a try if it makes the racer safer, but judging by your earlier posts you would just as soon relate them to the sidelines.

My point is that it is clear, very very clear, that there is no push for the halo from the drivers. Some would try it, but many say that it is a truly "sad day for Formula One". I am in that camp.

Blake wrote:

I can only imagine that you would have also been against helmets, Hahns devices, collars, rollover supports, high speed capacity tires... you can bet there were some who thought them unnecessary too... probably some even made asinine comments suggesting the "ruin" of F1 because of them.

An absolutely ridiculous assertion on your part that shows how bankrupt you are in logic. Had you ever had the opportunity to take a course in logic at university, you would have failed it miserably.

I am NOT against any of those safety measures because without them, the loss of life or increase in injuries would be dramatic and profound. Prior to Jules Bianchi's tragic death, Formula One went TWENTY YEARS without a fatality. How many laps of testing, practicing, qualifying, and racing occurred in those twenty years?

Formula One is safe enough. Additional safety measures are OK if they keep the sport intact. While you and others disagree, I strongly believe that F1 is an open cockpit and open wheel series.

Blake wrote:

Whether tarlik likes it or not, safety aspects will continue to be part of F1 evolvement. We aren't going to like some of them, may even think that they are ugly, but it is going to happen. And over time, we get used to the safety development, and most will get used to the Halo too.... As I said before, it isn't pretty...and while you think I am wrong, it is my perogative to think that F1 cars are already ugly... they do need to do what they can to make the sport safer... if not, the FIA would be negligent in their duties, and if an accident were to happen that a Halo may have saved a life, but it were shown that FIA had such a solution and ignored it... THEN... it could be the "end" of F1, not the use of a Halo ending F1. So, I agree with you in one respect... it is the FIA mandating the halo and it is coming from the top... as it should.

Is there a better answer? Perhaps so, and over time, it will come forth for review. it is called evolution.

Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

...Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.

...Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.

Your assertion is ridiculous and absurd. Aside from a few outlier cars, decades ago, F1 cars have been open wheel and open cockpit.

I could just as well suggest that American baseball can change from pitching a hardball to instead using a 12 inch softball and claim that it would still be baseball.

...Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.

Your assertion is ridiculous and absurd. Aside from a few outlier cars, decades ago, F1 cars have been open wheel and open cockpit.

I could just as well suggest that American baseball can change from pitching a hardball to instead using a 12 inch softball and claim that it would still be baseball.

That claim, just like yours, is absurd.

Closed cockpits and closed wheels would actually have a fairly limited effect on the sport from a performance and sporting point of view. Certainly far less than the addition of wings or a multitude of other changes in the history of F1. I think your analogy is absurd.

...Why stop at the halo? Someone will surely die in the future of F1 due to a head injury. That is certain. It's only a matter of time. Why not cover the cockpits? Why not cover the wheels? It's a simple task. The cars will be demonstrably safer.

Who cares if F1 is, in concept, destroyed? The cars WILL be much, much safer. Lives will be saved. That is a fact.

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

Open cockpit and open wheels are a long standing rules/design choice but if that changed it would still be Formula One.

Nothing would be destroyed other than some people's deep seated, but ultimately personal, ideas of what Formula One should be like.

Your assertion is ridiculous and absurd. Aside from a few outlier cars, decades ago, F1 cars have been open wheel and open cockpit.

I could just as well suggest that American baseball can change from pitching a hardball to instead using a 12 inch softball and claim that it would still be baseball.

That claim, just like yours, is absurd.

Closed cockpits and closed wheels would actually have a fairly limited effect on the sport from a performance and sporting point of view. Certainly far less than the addition of wings or a multitude of other changes in the history of F1. I think your analogy is absurd.

Limited? It seems your mind and vision are limited. When open wheeled cars race closely, it requires enormous talent and bravery to take cars to their absolute limits. Seeing such a racing often causes an intense increase in pulse, respiration, and excitement for the viewer at home, not just for the driver in the car. It's incredible and closed wheel racing offers nothing like that. Cars routinely bump off each other with very little consequence except in very rare situations.

F1 cars are the most intimate form of race cars, allowing fans to see the drivers unobstructed. True, it's not as unobstructed as it used to be, but it is still miles ahead of a prototype sports car.

The idea that nothing changes for the worse for F1 to lose these attributes is ludicrous.

Limited? It seems your mind and vision are limited. When open wheeled cars race closely, it requires enormous talent and bravery to take cars to their absolute limits. Seeing such a racing often causes an intense increase in pulse, respiration, and excitement for the viewer at home, not just for the driver in the car. It's incredible and closed wheel racing offers nothing like that. Cars routinely bump off each other with very little consequence except in very rare situations.

F1 cars are the most intimate form of race cars, allowing fans to see the drivers unobstructed. True, it's not as unobstructed as it used to be, but it is still miles ahead of a prototype sports car.

The idea that nothing changes for the worse for F1 to lose these attributes is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but your argument is the only one here that seems ludicrous to me. If you see fighter jets flying wing to wing, do you think about how boring it is because nothing's open?

The obsession with open cars is rooted in the past, in nostalgia, and in a romantic vision of F1 that has never been true to fact. It is not rooted in any rational thought.

wolfticket wrote:

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

This is the truth. In the 1950s, when Formula One was born, open wheel and open cockpit were believed to be the fastest. That is the extent of the reason F1 is open.

The funny thing is that people love the concepts like the Red Bull X1 which genuinely aren't open wheel or open cockpit, because it's aesthetically pleasing.

I really can't see this as being anything other than people unhappy that the cars won't look as nice, and that is simply not an argument to compromise on safety.

The open cockpit thing seems a bit of a red herring to me, when there isn't really anything to say F1 must be open cockpit, people react favourably to closed cockpit designs that look nice, and the Halo doesn't even enclose the cockpit anyway.

I also hate the other argument that we have to wait for an F1 driver to be killed by something the Halo would have stopped before we bring it in. Safety advances need to be proactive and shouldn't just be about waiting for catastrophes to happen.

Limited? It seems your mind and vision are limited. When open wheeled cars race closely, it requires enormous talent and bravery to take cars to their absolute limits. Seeing such a racing often causes an intense increase in pulse, respiration, and excitement for the viewer at home, not just for the driver in the car. It's incredible and closed wheel racing offers nothing like that. Cars routinely bump off each other with very little consequence except in very rare situations.

F1 cars are the most intimate form of race cars, allowing fans to see the drivers unobstructed. True, it's not as unobstructed as it used to be, but it is still miles ahead of a prototype sports car.

The idea that nothing changes for the worse for F1 to lose these attributes is ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but your argument is the only one here that seems ludicrous to me. If you see fighter jets flying wing to wing, do you think about how boring it is because nothing's open?

Thank you. You demonstrate exactly my point. Jet fighters wing to wing HAVE to be perfect. Why? Because there is no margin of error. At all. The same goes for open wheel racing.

I've been to nearly a dozen IMSA races back in the '80s and '90s. Great cars, wonderful sounds, excellent drivers and teams, but the racing was nowhere near as exciting, despite there being more passes and just as much wheel-to-wheel action. Why was it less exciting? Because the margin of error in this form of racing is HUGE. Cars could literally bounce off each other and not suffer much at all. Just like NASCAR, where bumping fenders is routine.

Exediron wrote:

The obsession with open cars is rooted in the past, in nostalgia, and in a romantic vision of F1 that has never been true to fact. It is not rooted in any rational thought.

You are completely and categorically wrong. You have no data to support such a statement. Even the most casual inspection of F1 cars throughout history shows that your statement is without merit and incorrect. One could easily calculate mathematically the percentage of F1 cars that were either closed top, or closed wheels or both. If such data supported your statement, you would most certainly have included it in your post. However, the data would radically disprove your statement, and so it is left un published.

Exediron wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

This is the truth. In the 1950s, when Formula One was born, open wheel and open cockpit were believed to be the fastest. That is the extent of the reason F1 is open.

I have no comment on this. I'm not arguing that the current state of the cars is the fastest way to make a race car. I'm arguing that we are losing the traditional aspects of the racing series that I and many grew up on. The wheels could have been covered and the cockpits closed back in 1985. There's no reason why it has to happen now. There's less reason in fact because the cars are demonstrably safer than they were back in 1985.

I'm sorry, but your argument is the only one here that seems ludicrous to me. If you see fighter jets flying wing to wing, do you think about how boring it is because nothing's open?

Thank you. You demonstrate exactly my point. Jet fighters wing to wing HAVE to be perfect. Why? Because there is no margin of error. At all. The same goes for open wheel racing.

I've been to nearly a dozen IMSA races back in the '80s and '90s. Great cars, wonderful sounds, excellent drivers and teams, but the racing was nowhere near as exciting, despite there being more passes and just as much wheel-to-wheel action. Why was it less exciting? Because the margin of error in this form of racing is HUGE. Cars could literally bounce off each other and not suffer much at all. Just like NASCAR, where bumping fenders is routine.

Your argument makes a certain sense... for open wheel racing. But we actually got onto this from open cockpit racing, where it doesn't work as well. With open wheels and closed cockpits, you'd still have no margin for error, you just wouldn't die as a result.

But I'll give you a point: I do see punishing mistakes as important for a racing series. However, since there aren't any ultra fast closed-wheel single seaters, nobody can actually say for sure that they wouldn't be subject to similar needs for precision. Ricciardo and Max's collision, for example, would still have resulted in a DNF if it had been a wheel housing instead of a wheel that penetrated RIC's car. I don't think we should assume they'd be anywhere near as resilient as tintops just because they had enclosed wheels.

Herb Tarlik wrote:

Exediron wrote:

The obsession with open cars is rooted in the past, in nostalgia, and in a romantic vision of F1 that has never been true to fact. It is not rooted in any rational thought.

You are completely and categorically wrong. You have no data to support such a statement. Even the most casual inspection of F1 cars throughout history shows that your statement is without merit and incorrect. One could easily calculate mathematically the percentage of F1 cars that were either closed top, or closed wheels or both. If such data supported your statement, you would most certainly have included it in your post. However, the data would radically disprove your statement, and so it is left un published.

What the heck does data have to do with it?

The most casual inspection of F1 cars will certainly reveal that they've almost all been open. But that has nothing to do with my argument, which was that people only want open cars because they're attached to the past. If anything, it strengthens it. You have no data to suggest a closed-wheeled single seater like the RBR or McLaren concept wouldn't produce good racing, because there's never been one.

Herb Tarlik wrote:

Exediron wrote:

wolfticket wrote:

The core concept of Formula One is being the series/formula that represents the fastest, highest level of single seater road course (ie. non-oval) racing in the world.

This is the truth. In the 1950s, when Formula One was born, open wheel and open cockpit were believed to be the fastest. That is the extent of the reason F1 is open.

I have no comment on this. I'm not arguing that the current state of the cars is the fastest way to make a race car. I'm arguing that we are losing the traditional aspects of the racing series that I and many grew up on. The wheels could have been covered and the cockpits closed back in 1985. There's no reason why it has to happen now. There's less reason in fact because the cars are demonstrably safer than they were back in 1985.

It's a traditional aspect that doesn't matter to me, but I do accept that it matters to some people. I am baffled as to why, however. I honestly haven't seen a good argument for open cockpits that doesn't lean on history for the sake of history.

Actually, two of the most beautiful race cars I have ever seen were built in the '50s...and raced in F1 !!!While they were open cockpit, the were not necessarily open wheel cars... they look pretty good to me!

Actually, two of the most beautiful race cars I have ever seen were built in the '50s...and raced in F1 !!!While they were open cockpit, the were not necessarily open wheel cars... they look pretty good to me!

The Mercedes was indeed a beautiful car.

A few questions: Why did that concept not catch on? Do FIA rules prohibit a team from building a car like that now?

It's a traditional aspect that doesn't matter to me, but I do accept that it matters to some people. I am baffled as to why, however. I honestly haven't seen a good argument for open cockpits that doesn't lean on history for the sake of history.

Think of it this way. It may help.

Many cities struggle with preserving old buildings. Typically an older building is demolished to make way for something new, that is better in many respects.

In Chicago, there was a building called the McCarthy building. It was built in the 1880's and was the last surviving building from that time and unique in it's architectural style. Even though the building had landmark status, developers were able to use the court system and get that removed. It was then torn down and a new skyscraper was built there.

Chicago lost part of its history with that move and many people felt that loss. The same occurred when the old Federal Building was demolished as well as the Chicago Stock Exchange building.

People enjoy their culture, what made them and their society as the way it is. While progress is inevitable and desirable in most cases, some control should be maintained. Some limits should be set.

I had no problems with engines going from front to back, the appearance of wings, sponsors, HANS, etc.

Given a 20 year run without a fatality, I draw the line at closing the cockpits and covering the wheels. If drivers were dying at an even moderately accelerated rate, I would not object to this move. But Formula One is as safe as many regular jobs. I worked for a major oil company for 4 years and many many people died each year in the oil extraction business. That's real dangerous work. Not one month went buy without one or more fatalities.

Thoughts on this Mercedes newer Halo design used this weekend? A slight improvement for me. Its not as big and seems a bit more like the concept art Mercedes released a few years back. I hope it continues to develop this way and would like to see them spray it in the cars colours to see how that looks. If they can continue to refine it, it shouldn't be too bad by the 4th or 5th development. If they could half the thickness of the struts it could be bearable.

To be honest, the more I see photographs of it, the more I get "used" to seeing it, or rather, not notice it is there. I think the biggest issue with the halo is it is such a big visual change, and a few races into 2018 people will have forgotten they are there.

I don't really notice the T wings anymore, yet they stuck out like a sore thumb at the start of the season.

Anyone changed there mind after seeing them "integrated" on the cars? For me, I think it looks even worse than I expected TBH. I'm pretty bummed about it. I agree with Jolyon Palmer "It's a step too far"

Anyone changed there mind after seeing them "integrated" on the cars? For me, I think it looks even worse than I expected TBH. I'm pretty bummed about it. I agree with Jolyon Palmer "It's a step too far"

I thought it was horrid before & I think it's just as horrid now.

_________________Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

Its like someone getting killed by a very small meteorite and then everyone being forced to walk round with a ridiculous deflector hat on. F1 is dying. the engines were the lump that appeared overnight. the halo is the call to the doctors. you probably thought its just a harmless lump. but its not.

Anyone changed there mind after seeing them "integrated" on the cars? For me, I think it looks even worse than I expected TBH. I'm pretty bummed about it. I agree with Jolyon Palmer "It's a step too far"

They don't bother me really. I think they look ugly from the head on views but I think they look actually quite nice from the side views of the car.

I'm interested to see them all on track at the same time for the first time but aesthetically they don't really bother me all that much. Aeroscreens are more pleasing and I imagine with IndyCar going down that route F1 will probably follow suit eventually.

I would have preferred the FIA specified that all teams must include driver head protection from 2018 onwards, and leave it up to them to decide how to approach this - subject to crash/impact testing to a predetermined minimum standard.

I think what I find sad is that no child will look at these cars and be inspired the way I was with the cars of the early 90s.

It seems really odd to me that the FIA have spent an enormous amount of time trying to work rules to make the cars more attractive and then mandated something uglier than anything else we've seen. If you're going to put a halo on why even bother with the 2017 regs designed for aesthetics and the cost of overtaking?

I think what I find sad is that no child will look at these cars and be inspired the way I was with the cars of the early 90s.

It seems really odd to me that the FIA have spent an enormous amount of time trying to work rules to make the cars more attractive and then mandated something uglier than anything else we've seen. If you're going to put a halo on why even bother with the 2017 regs designed for aesthetics and the cost of overtaking?

Yes, they will and indeed do.

You're just looking at it from your perspective. I'd imagine that if I was watching F1 in the 60's, the addition of wings towards the end of the decade and of course the 70's would have looked catastrophic.